(..)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Rinaldi botched perspective correction (on a tile he measured) and was sent home to do it again. That's a fact.
False. I tried to explain you what instad Rinaldi did. But you removed it.
Altough his intial measurement was too big his corrected measurements were even bigger and miraculously fitted exactly what prosecution needed. He was unable to explain how he did it, and you were unable, too. That's another fact.
The fact instead is, I was able to give measurements - made by myself - that where significantly closer to Rinaldi's, and explained how I did, and then also I showed that to obtain measurements of the kind of Rinaldi's based on the picture is possible (while to obtain Vinci's result it is not). I also explained the principles of perspective correction, and the principles
do explain the method by which a perspective correction can be obtained. I told you there is an angle that can be measured and reference points that can be shifted after having calculated the deformation of a grid. I told you the kind of result you would obtain if the angle is 20°. But you removed this explanation made in quite clear terms. I don't know why you chose to remove it from your reasoning and only see what the defence says.
Conjure away
What is entirely sufficient to make me believe AK and RS are innocent is that the break-in was not staged. But that's simple logic.
But the break in appears to be staged.
1. The rear balcony is the logical point of entry. Even if you would state it is more exposed to car sight, this assessment is false and quite ludicrous. The rear balconi is mor far from the road, it is in the dark, it is covered by a building, a person on a balcony won't be noticed as anything suspicious, the door-window had its shutters open, the climbing and the entrance is extremely easy and quick and non dangerous. Any burglar would enter though the terrace window or the kitchen balcony window. To me this is simply obvious.
2. Crumbles of white paint from the window shutters in Filomena's room had fallen on top of clothes that were tossed on the floor.
3. The big stone was found inside a paper bag that had fallen
on top of clothes.
4. The drawers were not opened, not searched and not touched by the burglar. A burglar who looks for money would look first in drawers, and in drawers of all rooms. Searching a drawer takes ten to twenty seconds. I don't believe the burglar could be interrupted in this job before this time. Nor that has to go to the toilet before this time (and after having opened the cupboard and tossed clothes on the floor).
5. The room was strewn with clothes and this is a nonsense activity for a burglar, while no valuables were taken, even if easily transportable. There is nothing useful in searching Filomena’s sweaters in her wardrobe.
6. There is no trace of soil and no trace of grass in Filomena’s room. Nor in the victim’s room. And this is not realistic in a true break in thought that window.
7. There are no shoeprints on the soil beneath the window. And this is impossible is someone steps in the area below the window.
8. The shutters were almost closed, and the window is 145 cm distant from the house corner, thus an entrance from that side would be quite dangerous.
9. There was no trace of soil on the external wall, nor on the sill.
10. No biological traces of Rudy Guede were found in Filomena’s room, on the glass shards, on the window frame, neither fingerprints of any kind, neither traces of glass removal and stepping on glass.
11. The opening of the window from the outside is dangerous and difficult even after braking the glass, mainly because the intruder doesn’t have a place to balance his body, to crouch, and would have to stick an arm though a guillotine shaped glass to reach the window latch. This operation is not feasible and not justified for a burglar.
12. There are no glass fragments in Merediths room (except one, but rather big). Someone instead did have small fragments on his cloths, but walked toward the kitchen.
Everything in the MoF case points out to a single psycho serial killer.
The satanic cult ritual murders explanation is a projection of a specific midset. A mindset inclined both toward conspiracy theories and eager for a witch hunt. Always seeking hidden truths and interpreting every neutral fact as meaningful and covering sinister and mischievous deeds. What is worrying is that such a mindset could prevail in a modern first world country not only among simple people but also in some official circles and apparently among some well educated. I think AK and RS felt victim to such a CT and witch hunt thinking, too.
Three people were found guilty of being implicated in the murders. The saying “compagni di merende” was born with this case. In the end, there was not so much mystery left actually. But testimonies gave reasons to believe the people implicated were four. A kind of satanism was brought in by witnesses – mainly prostitutes - who knew the defendants. And this would be not the only case in Italy of serial murders committed by a group inspired by satanic rituals. I am not able to express a definitive assessment on the MoF case. But certainly I would never state this is ‘certainly’ the work of a single killer.
of getting the maths wrong.
what kind of 'science' is this [ just spotted it now ]